Type 5 Heavy review - why this tank is extremely bad for the game, very poorl...

Дата: 25.09.2017 18:17:34

CheatingFishMonk, on 25 September 2017 - 01:08 PM, said: i agree that things like this are a two-sided thing, but if you as
a person think that they're not listening you might become less
civil, though i do not approve of it, i can somewhat relate,
however Ph3lan, Would you mind as a sign of goodwill tell us some
ideas you have yourself with regards of the type-5?

Ph3lan: I can relate as well, but I hope we manage to fix this
little by little I don't usually share my
personal ideas because what I see on the forums is seen as official
communication from WG and it is hard to distinguish between my own,
personal ideas and what our devs think about something. I am
gathering your feedback irrespective of whether I agree or not.
What I could offer is to bring this question up when I have the
next stream Q&A session with our devs, maybe some of you guys
can pop into the chat and remind me.?

Aikl, on 25 September 2017 - 01:31 PM, said: I have little trouble believing you, but if you asked me two
days ago, I would not have guessed that it was, apparently, a
primary concern for the staff (outside of the 'pure' mods) to
collect feedback. As for which sections to use, I guess it
makes sense to use the ones you mentioned. Still, there's even a
pinned thread in this subforum for suggestions. I'm
guessing that one's viable as well?
A 'template' might make little sense, but quite literally the point
is to filter out simple whining topics - even though from what I
understand, large parts of the playerbase are most comfortable
expressing themselves with grunts and insults on sexual orientation
rather than eloquent sentences. Anyway, duly noted, might gather up
some of the focused rants from the last few months and repost them
in the CU forum (which I was under the impression was
to changes made rather than what should be improved in
the future). It's good that the staff, or most likely rather
the higher-ups, have realized that a forum presence is a good idea.
The same goes for general interaction with the players.
Something like the 'sneak peek' on missions would work nicely for
what WG is working on. Nowadays we seem to get some peaks at things
coming wa-ay in the future, with no real status. Like, HD
maps are coming soonTM, according to MrConway. We've seen them
- but have no idea on the ETA, or if they are even coming in the
first place. Kind of reminds me of certain other projects, like the
Havok physics. Anyway, interaction with the players is good.
Hopefully your efforts on the forum is a sign that WG wants to
improve that outside the forums as well, though I have a sneaking
suspicion that this was a EU staff initiative rather than some
order from Minsk:

Ph3lan: Gathering feedback was always one of the primary things we
did, maybe we didn't communicate it properly. Well formulated,
constructive feedback is always appreciated and we are gathering it
from different sections including the ones mentioned above as well
as the gameplay section and the different crossposts from the
portal articles. However it is much easier to miss something
worthwhile here, than in the Current Update and the Public Test
sections for example. We are trying to dial up our
interaction with you guys on every front. To give you a sneak peek:
We are looking into a lot more streams on our end, including
gameplay, themed streams, Q&As with the devs etc. We will
have more info about this very soon. The HD maps
are indeed in the works, they were playable at gamescom 2017, and
you can take a look at our gamescom streams if you want to see them
in action.

WunderWurst, on 25 September 2017 - 02:35 PM, said: I am sorry and I guess I went overboard a bit and maybe did
not make it clear enough I am by no means "critizising" you as a
person, or your work but criticise WG as you are in this case
representing WG for me and most of the community. I am also not
questioning your work here. I am pretty certain that you are doing
a good job and forward all the things which make sense to be
reported to the devs. However I would like to discuss that
last sentence and I just cannot belive that is happening. Maybe
thats a lack of communication. However as a decent player it is
EXTREMELY hard to understand the decisionmaking of the balancing
department. Much and more just seems not to make ANY sense in my
eyes but also the eyes of pretty much any other decent player I
came across and talked to. I would like to know the reasoning why
certain balancing changes are done the way they are. And would it
hurt to show statistics on which base these decisions are made? I
am well aware of the fact that complex problems often require
complex solutions and cannot be done "with an easy fix". Its just
not how it works. Yet I truely must wonder who came up with
certain balancing decision on what base and for what reason or
purpose. Lets pick the Type 5 for an example - kinda also makes
sense because of this thread I can only interpret the changes done to the line in
one way, as for me there is not a single other reasonable
explanation for what is going on: The Type 5 (and its line) were
designed to promote the gold spam hence indirectly the pay2win
aspect gold ammo is. All that is done to increase the sales of WG
products only obtainable via real money (Gold / Premium time /
Premium Vehicles). For me it very much looks like balancing is
abused (in this case) to make more money rather than ensure the
quality of the product. Understand please that I cannot see another
reason for the changes they made happen to the Type 5. Maybe there
are reasons other than what I just said but I just cannot see
(maybe due to a lack of information). Now lets go further
and look at the latest adjustments the addition of "weakspots" to
that tank. I dont even want to go into to much detail but the so
called "weakspots" are obviously non. Its an "empty" change. A
competent balancing department (! Again I am well aware that you
have nothing to do with balancing!!!) would have understood that
from the get go. Its their job to know that and frankly if they did
not know that, maybe they are not the right guys for the job. All
that will make me belive that this "change" was soloe done to
pretend that WG is listining to their players, while they are
actually not willing to do so. I hope I brought my point
across a bit better now.

Ph3lan: Yep, this is much more constructive, thanks for that
I can totally understand
where you are coming from. lately I have had the pleasure to talk
to our developers in person a lot more than usual (thanks for all
the streams we made from tankfest and gamescom) and after all these
talks I have a much better understanding of how they make their
decisions. We all have our ideas about how these things work and we
tend to think that some of the things are so obvious and easy to
fix that the only reason for not fixing them can be either
incompetence from the devs or some kind of malicious money grabbing
scheme, right? However, as players we are simply looking at a small
portion of the big picture and we don't really appreciate how
complex of a system the game is and how many considerations the
devs have to take into account, things we are completely unaware
of. I hope that by giving you guys more direct access to the
developers, for example on Q&A streams, they will be able to
share some of their vision and give you a better sense of this
"bigger picture". Obviously they can talk about everything, and it
will take some time, but the will is there to involve the players
more and share more info, so I hope that you guys can also meet us
and the devs half way in our efforts.